Untangling Christianity Podcast

In this episode John and Gregg continue from last week’s podcast by resuming their conversation concerning Dan Dailey’s blog post titled “Sin of forsaking fellowship.”

Gregg notes, concerning his comment about being obligated to attend church in last week’s podcast, that this is, more accurately, an obligation to love others “rightly” (i.e., even as one loves oneself). And we best manifest this by offering to those in need. Particularly, where we are in a position to offer to other Christians this is an opportunity to follow the example of Jesus, as noted in John’s epistles, where Christians distinguish themselves on the basis of how they love each other.

John remains skeptical, however, that this sort of engagement must happen in a church. Gregg demurs: it is neither a magical process nor one that must happen at a church, rather it is one that is most likely to happen in church because, ironically, this is where those most “in need” are most likely to be found. So Gregg notes that, at least at the end of Dan Dailey’s blog post, that Dan describes regularly experiencing a gathering of fellow Christians that is a flourishing, authentic, and thriving environment.

In Gregg’s view this is something that many people in churches need, and that could revolutionize churches. Gregg also explains that he would only stop attending church “permanently” if either there was no benefit in attending or no need to attend. Yet he sees neither of these to be the case. So Gregg argues that, while Dan is not exactly espousing this, where church is essentially a negative situation and someone has the resources to assist these church goers, yet insists that they “figure matters out for themselves” without assisting in the ways that they can, this is not a Christian perspective.

Instead, Gregg argues that if love and truth / truth and love are prevalent within one’s environment then every other human being needs to be exposed to / benefit from this environment, and that the co-centrality of love and truth is a hallmark of a functional church. So Gregg posits that by embodying this environment in teaching others to seek and perpetuate these ways of being, we may in fact be taking Christianity to a church. This constitutes the phenomenon of “false religion” dominating a particular church, such that there then may be the need for prophetic intervention.

So Gregg wonders if Dan and his group in fact have something that is much more real, more true, and much more “in touch” with what the gospels are aiming at than the churches around him. Yet John counters: given that Gregg has attended a number of churches, what are the criteria of the Gregg would apply to deciding when to stay and when to leave a given church?

Gregg explains that the importance of having a community when going to a church is important even though, ironically, people typically go to a church to find such a community. In his opinion, having some form of a community at the outset—when first attending a church—would make a big difference. John sees the value of this but doubts that he would have sufficient resilience to continue questioning if he were at church. Yet Gregg reframes: what if John was not alone in pushing certain questions? What if, in other words, John didn’t always have to be “that guy” asking the hard questions?

Gregg contends that there is typically too much power in churches that is centralized with the minister / pastor. When this distribution of power “works” the church can function very well, such as in the church the Gregg is currently attending. John wonders: what ingredients make such a church “work”?

In Gregg’s situation, the church that he attends is filled with artists, including professional musicians and ticketed actors. Further, this church is located in a hamlet that is, unusually, home to theatre school, and their focus is on helping students “find their voice.” In other words, in this community one’s distinctiveness, creativity, and an awareness of one’s individuality are highly valued and promoted.

The post 96: Evangelizing a Church? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss a blog post entitled “The Sin of Forsaking Fellowship,” by Dan Dailey, first raised in the Untangling Christianity private Facebook group. John wonders about a comment that Gregg left on the blog post.

Gregg explains that he was struck by what he saw as a crucial contradiction at the beginning of the post. For example, the author both appears to be writing from a personal perspective and has made a rather drastic choice for a Christian (to “quit going to church . . . permanently”), yet the author claims that his reasons for making this decision are not relevant to the post. Gregg explains that he finds this misleading (because his reasons for leaving church surely are relevant to the post!) and so wanted the author to know that this approach created distrust for Gregg.

So Gregg underscores that knowing why someone holds a particular perspective, especially where it appears to deviate radically from accepted norms, is essential to understanding the perspective (and perhaps, being persuaded by it). Particularly, the idea of being a Christian but permanently leaving the church is extremely uncommon and so Gregg wants to have information about why this decision was made and why this might be a good decision for others (which Gregg believes the post is advocating).

John, however, resonates with the majority of the article, particularly the idea that there is too much focus on “a single verse” (Hebrews 10:25) as justification for why Christians must continue attending church. John also likes Dailey’s analogy of church as a “club for married men,” such that those who attend regularly are faithful to their wives while those who stop attending eventually break relationship or can’t stay in good relationship with their wives.  It’s the idea that attending church in the same way is the only way Christians can stay faithful to God.

Gregg counters that while this may be an accurate picture of many churches, this is not to say that these churches are properly carrying out their role (and accurately reflecting a New Testament depiction of “the church”). As such, Gregg argues that it is unfair to use a false or broken picture of something in order to reject that thing: if this is the wrong way of doing church that don’t reject church, do church the right way!

While John does not see the article as advocating leaving the church, Gregg does, and feels it goes to extremes. John pushes Gregg by asking if he (John) is failing in his  obligation to attend church. Gregg responds that he is uncertain, though Gregg argues that John seems to be in situation than Dailey.

So Gregg re-circles to a conversation that he and John had several episodes ago (about attending church or attending a small group) and finding yourself in a position where “pat” Christian ideas are raised and everyone gives “courtesy nods.” Gregg finds this a difficult environment in which to be both unobtrusive yet effective. In fact, Gregg thinks that he would be far more optimistic about attending such a gathering if, for example, John went too.

Gregg draws a connection with the current discussion in that, if Dailey is fortunate enough to gather with a group with whom he can have authentic engagement as Christians and Christianity, then this is something that Dan should be sharing with others, notably with church-goers. In other words, Gregg believes this is something that the church needs, so if Dailey has a version of fellowship that is “working” he has an obligation to share it.

Gregg’s point is that, by and large, the greatest number of people who are both open to Christianity and who are in need of help relative to those same beliefs are churchgoers! Gregg also pushed back against the notion that attending church is down to “one verse.” Instead he notes how, in 1st century Palestine, the orientation around the family was extraordinarily strong and how Jesus, in the gospels, draws new lines of attachment such that those who believe in him should see their fellow believers as their family.

So there is an entire cultural orientation towards gathering, maintaining contact, and generally being in right relationship with one’s family, whether by blood or belief: this is much more than “one verse!” Indeed, Gregg goes further and argues that Christians have an obligation to attend church, which Johns is surprised to hear Gregg state so strongly.

Gregg believes he and others have an obligation to share valuable knowledge and experiences they have acquired and that he is not “loving his neighbour” if he “sits on” / holds back this information (i.e., he does not seek to publish it or in some way make it up more broadly available).

So while Dailey may be geographically distant from a church or may have made many such attempts in the past, Gregg believes that, given what Dailey has expressed in this post, he has valuable things that he can share with other Christians, and is actually obliged do to so.

John questions where this obligation originates from and Gregg replies that the obligation comes out of the command to “love one’s neighbour” rightly.  John questions why this has to happen at an “official church.” Gregg believes because churches are where the majority of the people who need help with Christianity are!

The post 95: Obligated Church Attendance? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Greg to discuss a recent discussion John had with his parents around NT Wright’s book Surprised by Hope. While discussing the first chapters, John referred to some ideas Gregg has put forth.

John was surprised when his father suggested that, “It’s great that Gregg has those ideas, but you have to figure out your own ideas here.” The idea being that John needs to do his own study of the Bible. As the discussion continued, John realized that his father’s knowledge and proficiency regarding the Bible was quite pronounced. From this, John wondered: Can one become this proficient if the impetus for doing so is simply duty and obligation?

In other words, John speculates that his father’s reason for becoming so familiar with the Bible is because he wanted to and questions whether someone could become so proficient driven only by obligation or duty.

Gregg responds that he is concerned that he himself will not have enough time during the course of his life to get to become as knowledgeable and proficient in terms of the biblical languages, for example. In Gregg’s view, however it is possible to make significant gains in terms of one’s knowledge and proficiency concerning the Bible on one’s own.

John worries that if this is a concern for Gregg, how much more so for others (who said we do not have the time, the inclination, or the resources to be studying the Bible as intensely as he has)? Gregg responds on the one hand, that it takes very little to embrace an orientation that is “basically Christian.” So Gregg believes that, when it comes to doing your “due diligence” relative to Christianity, a lot has to do simply with starting.

Yet on the other hand, Gregg notes that one’s skill, available time and resources, and the social implications of investigating Christianity all need to be considered. John agrees: he notes that even the Bible itself is a very long book ( commentaries and other books aside). Yet John also speculates that investigating the Bible at slow and steady pace may be the best approach.

Having begun reading the Bible John wonders about whether some of these early biblical figures actually lived as long as is recorded in the Bible? Similarly, John wonders at what point those who interpret the early parts of the book of Genesis poetically would believe that the book as reflecting real states of affairs—things that actually happened?

Gregg replies that determining the accuracy of ages of biblical personages is really not within our grasp. Yet can the idea of doubting Adam’s age or especially Adam’s historicity (as being a real human being who existed as the first ancestor to all of humanity) destroy the fabric of the entire biblical story? Gregg argues that it does not. The Bible is both historical / historiographical and, as a story, has the power to transform our understandings (of God, self, and world) and so empower us to see and live differently.

Gregg views the above as a reductionistic approach to the Bible that is actually being idolatrous: the claim that we, as human beings, can know the intention and meaning of what is written without relying on the Bible’s textuality (such as genre, use of literary devices, etc.) and without relying on its linguistic, historical, and cultural components in order to guide our reading (and so inform our interpretations). This would amount to overriding given norms of literary coherence, significance, and meaning and replace them with our own!

Rather, Gregg sees the thrust of the Biblical texts being toward truth-seeking, and so pushing its readers actually to be open to all manner of questions (including Adam and Eve’s historicity) with a spirit not of destructiveness but of openness, in order to seek more truth.

So Gregg believes that the potency and truth of the account of Adam and Eve is not harmed by these two not having been actual, live human beings. In terms of Paul references to Adam in Romans 5, Gregg notes that good work has been done on this without any broad consensus on a way of seeing this yet having been adopted. However, this does not mean that Christians can shut their eyes to the mass of evidence that is all around them (through geology, anthropology, etc.) and idolatrously read the text in a recipe-like fashion.

The post 94: Do Your Own Work appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg revisit their discussion from last podcast, where they considered the validity of claiming that certain experiences are “from God.”

In this episode they discuss the example of “the eagle” (i.e., being on a hike with a group of people and seeing an eagle in the sky, and one person claims that “God put that eagle there for me.”). Gregg sees this as essentially a “faith claim” and wonders about the reason for making such a claim. So if the eagle was put there by God for this person, what is the significance of such an act?

Gregg speculates that perhaps someone is “having a good day” and the presence of the eagle is simply a form of reassurance / a way of punctuating those feelings. But Gregg believes that interpreting such experiences as being “of God” can also be (and more likely, is often) taken by the recipient as a way of validating the thoughts / understandings that accompany those feelings.

Thus “the eagle” may be taken to legitimate someone’s thinking rather than assessing such thinking on the basis of its rationality or its coherence with real life, the biblical text, or whatever criteria would actually be most appropriate!

John wonders what constitutes “enough” for a given person to claim that a certain experience is “from God” or that the effect of a certain experience is to understand God better, to live their Christian life better, etc. John raises the example of a friend who, will studying for a degree, took a 3 week break to study the Bible and had a transformative experience. John wonders if Gregg thinks this is possible?

Gregg responds that he would wonder what this person is claiming to have understood, experienced, etc., within that period. So if the person studied the Bible for 3 weeks straight and, as a result, developed a greater degree of comfort with the coherence of Scripture between whatever texts they may have been examining, this sounds plausible. In other words, what exactly is the situation (i.e., what was experienced / happened) and what is being claimed as a result (i.e., what is being concluded about this situation).

John suggests that many people would argue that “God can do anything” and thus why couldn’t God put that eagle there? Gregg counters that God can’t just do “anything,” because God has committed God-self to certain things and against others. To fail to see this is to hold a superstitious view of who God (rather than a God of a very specific character who has acted over time repeatedly to reveal that character, in order to prompt human beings to engage with God in very specific ways—in love relationships based on truth), based in part on misperceiving the Bible as a jumble of disconnected stories (rather than an unfolding tale of God acting for the sake of God’s greatest project—bringing about God’s kingdom—a project deeply intertwined with human flourishing).

So Gregg argues: if God can do anything for anyone at any moment for any reason, then we can expect anything. Or more accurately, if everything is plausible then we can expect nothing, because God is then completely unpredictable. Further, we are left without any means of adjudicating between competing claims. Yet such understandings are not supported by the biblical portrayals of God nor the biblical indications of how Christians are to act.

John then wonders: what are better ways to understand our own experiences and, particularly, what are better ways to understand the experiences of others?

Gregg replies that counseling offers an excellent example of what he is aiming at. So from Gregg’s own experience of being in counseling, his counselor rarely questioned Gregg’s observations (i.e., whether he really saw or heard what he claimed to) but would often ask questions about how Gregg had interpreted a situation or about the conclusions that he had drawn from it.  Gregg then believes that his experience of having to re-examine his own experiences (and do so alongside of a trained professional) has allowed him to develop certain skills in reading experiences is general—both his own and others.

For example, one situation that raises Gregg’s concern is when the magnitudes of the event and of the conclusion are disproportionate, such as when someone “makes much” of a relatively minor situation. John appreciates this nuance.

The post 93: The Eagle Circles Again appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss some of Gregg’s ideas about how / what it means to “experience God.”

Reflecting on their past discussion in episode #77,  John wonders if Gregg views God’s action in the world being solely for the purpose of furthering God’s kingdom rather that touching / engaging with people individually?

Gregg counters that he views God to have acted in a very personal way in his life, as an individual, and that people should expect God to act personally. Yet Gregg’s belief is that this “personal action” will not necessarily occur individually, and so we need to be careful not to confuse the expectation that God will act in meaningful, personal ways in people’s lives with the expectation that God will necessarily so act in my life.

John finds this perspective discouraging, because he believes that he needs some experience of God (such as God meeting certain needs or having some form of significant, palpable connection with God) in order to “put him over the top” and solidify his belief that God is real and that Christianity is worth committing to. John offer such examples as the book of Acts, where droves of people had transformative experiences of God.

On the one hand, Gregg is hesitant to consider the book of Acts as an example for contemporary Christian expectations, because the catalyst for book’s activities was Pentecost: the most powerful and immediate event of the Holy Spirit in human history. On the other hand, Gregg argues that “experiences” of God as a notion is misleading: such events are never simply “experiences.”

The post 92: Questioning Experiences of God appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg resume their discussion about church attendance, this time regarding children. John starts by wondering about Gregg’s process in allowing his children to make choices about where to attend church, and also about the difference between teaching our children to believe Christianity, versus to understand (life, and so Christianity).

Gregg explains that it would have seemed deceptive (to his children) if he and his spouse tried to force their children to approach Christianity in a way different from how the two of them were approaching it (i.e., by not allowing them to make at least some of their own decisions, such as where they wanted to attend). Gregg see this as allowing the children to have some information (about Christianity) yet also standing back a bit and allowing Christian experience (and particularly the experience of God) to “unfold” in his children’s lives.

So Gregg hunches that a big reason for the children wanting to come to the church that he and his spouse play is that large role that they saw this church (and especially, Christianity) playing in their parents coming back together after many months of marital separation.

Gregg explains that he and his spouse, Susan, were separated for 8 months and heading for divorce before deciding to come back together. At the outset of this period Susan re-initiated her investigation of God (and Christianity in specific) as a result of the separation. Further, by themselves being part of—and observing—this process of separation, the children are aware of the changes they experience in their mother and can see their father softening, recognizing his own contributions to the matter, and gradually reconnecting with their mother. And they understand that Christianity is playing a crucial role in this transformation.

Gregg summarizes: in his view, the reason that his children have decided to come to this church is because the children have seen good things happening to their parents, and in their family, through their parents being associated with this church. In other words, Gregg believes that there is evidence over time, through concrete and observable events, that point to God being involved in this process of marital reconciliation and healing.

In this way Gregg argues that there are real events and situations that his children have been able to “latch onto” and that offer substance and solidity to their belief, and that working to understand these is deeply tied to understanding who God is and what it might mean for God to act in the world (rather than simply memorizing Bible verses or believing ideas from Sunday school).

So in the course of their parents “sticking it out” with God, Gregg’s children are able to understand certain things about God and Christianity, things that will be valuable and necessary for them to cultivate their own Christian belief. So too by allowing the children access to some of the difficulties associated with church-going this provides the children access to how adults are weighing up various situations and allows the children to develop these skills as they make their own assessments.

Thus Gregg believes that helping his children think through matters and become competent assessors of life situations is one of the greatest skill sets that parents can model.

In terms of understanding and belief, Gregg highlights that many Christians still hold an Enlightenment perception that they can “know” that Christianity is true (and similarly, many non-Christians resist Christianity because they too insist that they know that Christianity is true in order to embrace it). Yet Gregg notes that the progression from belief, to understanding, to trust is essential to having faith: to holding Christian belief (as in episode #31).

Further, Gregg thinks this belief is always based on certain things (such as Gregg’s children might base a certain degree of belief on the reconciliation of their parents and the role that Christianity purportedly played in this). So a Christian’s beliefs should both makes sense of the Bible’s truth claims (i.e., the beliefs are based on finding that there is a certain truth value to those truth claims) and yet such belief is not knowledge in the sense of certain knowledge, or scientific knowledge.

The post 91: Kids and Church | Belief vs Understanding appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

During this episode John and Gregg again discuss church attendance, especially as their earlier conversation on this topic generated much feedback from listeners.

John continues to grapple with the notion that one may abstain from going to church, the more so as he tracks with one of our listener’s who has also pressed pause” on church attendance. John notes that importance of reconsidering what church-going is about, despite the pressure that one is “supposed to” attend and that things might “go wrong” if one doesn’t.

John remains quite concerned about how his current lack of church-attendance will affect his son. Yet he emphasizes that his integrity (in abstaining from church until he has a better understanding of why he would attend and the value of attending is more apparent) and living out that integrity in his family, and to his son, is more important than attending church in the hope that he “ensures his son goes to heaven.”

John summarizes: he cannot educate his son to do and believe something that he cannot do (and does not believe).

Gregg notes that this theme of “church not working” has garnered more responses from their regular interactors than any other topic, and he has been particularly interested to hear and read their comments—and John’s—now that, finally, Gregg is at the stage where church is working.

Gregg explains that church is “working” not only for him but for his spouse and his children. He recounts how he allowed his children to decide to continue attending a church that he and his spouse decided to leave, and that over time his children have decided for themselves that this in not a church that they want to attend.

A principal reason of their decision was that the children were able to identify that all of the discussions that took place (in Sunday School, youth events, etc.) seemed “rigged.” In other words, the interchange had the pretense of a discussion, as though the topic were important, when in fact the children’s experience was that this was simply a method for teaching them something (like the importance of going to heaven).

Gregg explains this as “didacticism”: coercing recipients to assimilate the right answer through misrepresentation, under-information, and scare tactics. Didacticism is not a method of teaching but is an ideological practice made to appear like “teaching,” and which is employed when understanding the subject matter correctly is of ultimate importance (such as accepting Jesus in order to go to heaven).

Yet a didactic ideology both fails to do justice to the subject matter and to the recipient. On the one hand, it typically presents its preferred answer as “the only answer,” and never presents other viewpoints as being viable (if it presents them at all), nor offers any reasoning for favoured answer. Rather, the consequences of getting the answer wrong (or more overt scare tactics) are pitted against the need “simply to accept” the correct answer. And in the process, it disrespects the recipient as a thoughtful person who should be valued enough to be given as much information as possible and allowed to make his or her own choice.

Gregg sees this as a facade and wonders if this approach is not actually cultish, or an example of “group-think”: being impressed by the logic of something where there is no logic. When John seems surprised that Gregg’s children were able to see through this façade, Gregg retorts: his children are also in process of watching their parents go through similar examinations (i.e., trying to find truth relative to their faith) and are learning from this example.

Gregg likens this to the idea that part of parenting will is catching your children “doing good,” and notes that in this case he has give his children ample opportunity to catch him “doing good!”

In this vein, Gregg notes that church environments can actually breed falsehoods and be unhelpful, and so we must be quick to debunk the idea that only real impediment to church “working out” is failing to understand that the “church is filled with imperfect people” or “you’ll never find the perfect church” or “it’s about you making the environment work.”

To John’s question about how to know when to “cut bait” at a given church, Gregg notes two considerations. First, do I have a legitimate voice? That is, if others disagree with me, is disagreement seen to be valid in this context (or is disagreement a sign of, for example, disobedience)? Next, although my views may diverge from that of others, are the views themselves seen as legitimate (even if in need of being adjusted or even reformed).

In contrast to this, Gregg notes that if one is seen as a “subverter of the faithful,” then any amount of dialogue that is offered will be false dialogue (aimed at showing me my faults rather than discussing our viewpoints) and in such cases one should simply leave that church context: this is a no-win situation.

Lastly, Gregg suggests that we need to be conscious of what is happening in our lives, and so the amount of energy one has to engage about such matters / respond in the case that one feels mistreated.

The post 90: How to Decide on Church appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss listener Stephanie’s question: “Is it possible to have an authentic Christian experience without going to church?”

Gregg is enthusiastic that Stephanie developed this conversation in the Untangling Christianity private FaceBook group. He comments on the role of “obedience” in terms of going to church, noting that Hebrews 10:24-5 tends to be cited as “command” to Christians to attend church. Gregg summarizes the greater context of the end of the book of Hebrews by indicating that the focus is on who Jesus is, what Jesus has accomplished (bringing in the new covenant), and what this means for Jews relative to the first covenant.

However, Gregg is wary of finding a harmful circularity in this situation. He explains this by noting that if many Christians equate church attendance with being “obedient to God,” then this means obedience in what sense / to what? In other words, what is the greater cause to which Christians are beholden? And where the reply is often something like: “to be Christ-like,” Gregg would ask the same question: to what end / for what reason?

Here is where things often get a bit strange, because the answer is typically: because we are told to. So we are to be obedient in order to be Christ-like, and Christ-like in order to be obedient? Really?

In Gregg’s view, anyone detecting that type of circularity and still deciding to adhere to the Christian faith is someone willing to believe that Christianity is anaemic to reason and rational thought and living a purposeful life. And if Christianity amounts to both intellectual suicide and is divorced from real life, why would we want anything to do with it?

John notes that he has been immersed in a Christian culture for so long that he still hears this notion of Church attendance almost as a command. Yet he also believes that one can be a Christian while not going to church, and that going to church must be more that “checking off the box” that one was in attendance this week. John notes that Stephanie’s comment about “defiantly seeking the truth” may be exactly what is needed here, because for Christians not to attend church is being counter-cultural, or defying that culture.

John also highlights the love / duty distinction in terms of our motivation to attend church. Gregg asks, “Can churches impede our ability to know and relate to God well?” John thinks so, particularly as church-going so often amount to box-ticking and churches may be oriented poorer ways of understanding God (such as those found in not a fan).

Gregg then wonders, how would John explain his non-churchgoing to someone attending church? John first notes that church is not something that “adds value,” which means helping him to grow, think differently and enriching his life. He notes that church-going resulting in feeling angry, frustrated, and even empty.

John notes that he is looking for the experience of knowing God. Gregg challenges this: he is not always sure that when people are going to church and church is “working” for them, that they should actually be attending. So Gregg counsels care in how we use our emotional responses as yardsticks to measure whether church-going is beneficial / “working.” So he wonders how important John’s lack of emotional resonance with church-going is, relative to his choice not to attend church?

So Gregg returns to Stephanie’s comment about “defiantly seeking the truth,” and sees this as an orientation to seek a reasonable and rationally coherent faith that offers purposeful living. Further, Gregg argues that in terms of obedience Christians are called to be truth-seekers, which means being obedient not to the Bible but rather to truth, and the clearest and primary “truth” in the biblical text is to love God entirely, love oneself rightly, and love others likewise.

So Gregg translates this into examining our expectations surrounding church-going (both in terms of attending and not attending). Further, Gregg notes that experience of God is personal but not necessarily individual, and so John has indirect experiences of God, through Gregg’s testimony of how Gregg believes that God has acted in Gregg’s life.

In the end, Gregg argues that each person needs to “own” their faith and so to be able to explain their faith, not to others but primarily to oneself. We do this in order to understand what makes this faith real for us and that, by embracing this faith, we become real, more human, more fully alive.

So each of us should be able to explain what Christianity is “in our own words,” as well as who God is, what / who human beings are, and how we are to relate.

The post 89: Do I Have to Go to Church? appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss an article from Relevant magazine, concerning an interview with Rachel Held Evans on how Millennials feel alienated from most church settings, and are looking for a committed community rather than for a church with “the right” programs or music.

John notes, despite not being in the Millennial age bracket, that for a long time he’s had similar feelings to Rachel’s. He explains that the worship music has never been that important to him and that he too feels more comfortable in the Episcopal church.

Where the article also focuses on church attendance declining, John notes that when his lack of church attendance comes up with others he is most often asked simply whether he is attending (and never about the deeper, more causal issues such as how he’s thinking or feeling about God, where he is in terms of his spiritual journey, etc.). Yet he finds this line of questioning assumes too much, such as that if you’re attending a church then it must be a good one (or good enough) and that ‘truth’ is being spoken there.

Gregg notes that he found this same disconnect within the article itself. It claims that Millennials want church communities where they can have connection yet nowhere spells out what this is, as though we all somehow know it and so can create or muster it. So he wonders what “worked” for John about the Episcopal setting?

John notes particularly that in the Episcopal church he never had the sense that they were trying to evoke or play on his emotions: it was allowing John to “be himself.” So John also wonders if the sort of churches referred to in the article are not places where Millennials (or he himself) would feel comfortable because they are places where people feel obligated, rather than want, to be?

John links this to the familiar evangelical “guilt trip” about the need to attend church or else see one’s life and practices deteriorate. He explains that he stopped attending church three or four years ago, yet it took about three years for this same guilty feeling no longer to occur to him on a Sunday morning. And while John is realistic about the church being composed of imperfect people he still identifies fear, guilt, and obligation as the main reasons why he was attending church, and instead highlights the good times and sense of connection that he had with his non-Christian work mates.

John attributes this lack of connection mostly to himself, because he believes that at least some of the people attending church actually want to be there and church is working out well for them. Gregg is doubtful: he sees John as being “on a quest” for authenticity and yet John can’t connect with those who are comfortable with authenticity? John replies that he thinks that has grown a lot regarding his openness toward vulnerability and authenticity.

Gregg expresses confusion with the article concerning authenticity and connection: on the one hand Rachel says that the people in her church knew and loved her better than any others. Yet on the other hand she indicates that she felt so lonely in church because the people were so disconnected with the way that she sees the world, and she could no longer accept their perspectives.

John wonders: How can we be loved and supported by people who don’t understand us? Gregg thinks similarly: How can the people who “know and love me best” fail to be engaged with (or even aware of) the things that matter most to me—how is this either knowing or loving me?

Further, Gregg thinks that Rachel’s description actually misrepresents either the people in the church or the church as a whole. This is because, in Gregg’s view, the Christian’s main main pursuit is to be fully dedicated both to living with God and living life authentically. Yet how can the people in Rachel’s church be doing this and yet be so “off track” in relating Christianity to real life, such that people like Rachel end up feeling alienated?

Gregg answers that one reason is a lack of self-love by the people in the church (by acting in a way that undercuts their main goals: living with God and living life authentically). The result is that if we cannot love ourselves well, we cannot then be in a position to love others rightly (i.e., correctly to understand where others are at and how to meet them there).

If this is so, then the real issue here is not Church attendance (and church generally) being in decline for / out of step with a certain group, such as Millennials. Instead, the issue is how the church is continuing to lose credibility, and how this lose of credibility is discernible not just to those outside the church but also to those within it.

The post 88: Church Isn’t Working appeared first on Untangling Christianity.

In this episode John and Gregg discuss a very unusual ‘listener’ email.

When Gregg was 22 years old his father killed himself, his son (Gregg’s younger brother), and two young parents in a car crash. Gregg’s father was traveling 100 mph in a 50 mph zone and was legally drunk at the time, and so was unquestionably responsible for these four deaths.

In this same regard, Gregg recently received a warm, gracious email from one of the children of the parents that Gregg’s father killed. John and Gregg discuss the impact of receiving this correspondence and Gregg’s reflection both on the events of the past and their implications now.

Gregg explains a few of the major impacts of the accident and how he is reflecting on them differently, following this correspondence. On the one hand, Gregg explains that he has realized that his intention to “be a better man than his father” is something that he has been straining toward too hard. In fact, Gregg now finds himself able to acknowledge that in terms of many of the steps that he took even while his father was still alive (such as identifying potential issues in his own life, determining how to address these issues, and then actually addressing them) he had already achieved that goal. This realization has proved liberating.

Next, Gregg explains his sense that relative to the accident he left certain important steps untaken, such as viewing the police report of the accident. As Gregg unfolds some of the importance of this for him, in terms of being a detail-oriented person who examines information closely, he also realizes that viewing this report (and potentially seeing the photos of his charred family) will have a very difference impact upon him now.

Specifically, Gregg notes that his relationship with God is very different now than what it was. This relationship will not ease the pain or reduce the insanity of the event (nor blunt the impact of Gregg’s father’s utter selfishness is committing this act). Rather, this new relationship with God means that when Gregg finishes and closes the file, the matter remains in its proper place. In other words, this situation does not have have the “final word” in terms of who Gregg is / have the power to define Gregg’s identity.

This is much different than the result that Gregg would have imagined in past, and Gregg connects this result to his relationship with God by underscoring that his tendency to address God as “Father” is not based on habit or good Christian practice or theological acumen. Instead, Gregg calls God “Father” because he means it—because this is actually how Gregg views the relationship, with God actually being Gregg’s true father.

The post 87: Saying Father and Meaning It appeared first on Untangling Christianity.